Instead of arguing the specifics of religious text, I would like to explore the basis of religion itself.

First and foremost, religion is not a debate of science. I know that many will highly disagree, but if science was created by man, and we have concluded that the universe itself was not created by a man, then how can science explain something beyond scientific reasoning (or put simply, beyond human reasoning?). How do you explain the unexplainable with something explainable?

A lot of people will argue that it is as simple as using sensibility. You cannot deduce that you can drink a gallon of bleach and as long as you pray to God, you will not die. Evidence has proved countless of times that these individuals will either die or suffer greatly, regardless of prayer. However, I do not believe that God (across any religious book) has ever stated that if you cause willful harm to yourself, he will save you as long as you pray to him. In fact, across any western religious book, I do not believe that God promises anything other than death. So is believing in God really a question of sensibility?

One of the most controversial arguments having to do with religion is its inconsistencies and contradictory nature. The violent vehemence of God largely contradicts the notion that he is all-knowing and all-good.People believe that there are "unnecessary" evils that happen everyday without divine intervention, and that therefore God cannot be all-good, and that if he is, then he is not all-knowing of these evils.My counter to these arguments goes as follows: Isn't the very nature of humanity contradicting in itself? Why is it so difficult for us to comprehend something equally as contradicting? Western religion tells us a lot of things but for one, and what non-religious and religious people seem to gather from it is that a) it is contradictory and b) it is an elaboration of the basis of humanity/it is attempting to explain the basis of humanity, our nature, and where we come from.

When you read the bible or the Koran, you might cringe at the words on the page but you might also do the same if you watch the 5 o'clock news everyday. So why is it that we can openly digest the realities of this world when subject to modern scrutiny, but there are books over a thousand years old that also very thoroughly depict the nature and behaviors of humanity? Why write it off as "insensible" simply because we do not like that God is not made of rainbows and starlight, or dressed up like superman coming to save the day?

God promises none of that. God says: I made you. You are insignificant compared to me; you would not be here if not for me, and you shall worship me whether you like it or not. Why is he not owed worship and thanks? There is no scientist or doctor on this earth that can successfully create a sperm and egg with his own hands, or keep the veins in your body from suddenly collapsing, or keep the oxygen in the air, nor can you. Who is owed that thanks or respect? Surely, a higher being, whether it be a Judeo Christian God or Zeus, is owed that thanks and respect.

I believe that we like to think that we're in control of things, and that we are much smarter than we actually are. Ironically, every western religion or philosophical religion such as Buddhism, or pretty much anyone looking to affirm a different, healthier lifestyle, conforms to what is called "ego death". It is a very difficult thing to do but it is also enlightening. I encourage anyone who reads this to then re-read it without ego, without the notion that you know anything at all because truthfully, you do not--religion confirms this; religion says: you do not know anything, you are blind, and let me guide you here. It is not something you can counter with human logic, so to counter it at all suggest that you consider yourself to already be a higher being who knows everything. It would also suggest that you created yourself and therefore have complete control over the happenings of your being, such as preventing yourself from being born with congestive heart failure.

It implies a lot to say that you know with certainty that there is no God, and in doing so you have to be willing to prove it just as atheist often ask people of faith to prove the existence of God. Do we not prove you wrong by simply suggesting that you who speaks is not God? Humans are not smart. We have built things that have both helped humanity and destroyed them. We control our machines but we do not, and cannot ever control the earth or universe and life itself. Yet, we think ourselves supreme when a meteor could wipe us out tomorrow?

I am really curious to read an atheist's response to this.I am politely asking for science to be left out of this because as I mentioned before, this is not a scientific debate or a debate of scripture. I am simply debating the notion that God cannot exist because it is illogical and insensible.

So why is it that we can openly digest the realities of this world when subject to modern scrutiny, but there are books over a thousand years old that also very thoroughly depict the nature and behaviors of humanity? Why write it off as "insensible" simply because we do not like that God is not made of rainbows and starlight, or dressed up like superman coming to save the day?

Because they are pretty much in line with their bronze-age times. With all the superstition, cultural values, and myths of the time and place they were written. If you go to China you will find an equal but very different host of superstition dating back to these times (dragons, anybody?).

A long time before more than a tiny fraction of the population knew how to write, a long time before the life expectancy reached 50, a long time before rigorous scientific enquiry existed, and a long time before sophisticated data collection and storage was developed.

We have no idea how precise those texts are, what mental condition the writers were, and we already know most did not date untul daces after the alleged events.

That's why I don't take these seriously. My standards of evidence are much higher for exceptional beliefs that that.

God promises none of that. God says: I made you. You are insignificant compared to me; you would not be here if not for me, and you shall worship me whether you like it or not. Why is he not owed worship and thanks? There is no scientist or doctor on this earth that can successfully create a sperm and egg with his own hands, or keep the veins in your body from suddenly collapsing, or keep the oxygen in the air, nor can you. Who is owed that thanks or respect? Surely, a higher being, whether it be a Judeo Christian God or Zeus, is owed that thanks and respect.

Even if I knew, with 100% certainty that such a God existed, perhaps I would feel grateful, and be respectful of his demeanor if I saw fit. But I would not worship him. I would not submit myself to him. I don't agree with slavery, mind slavery, or cooersion, so this would only go so far.

So why is it that we can openly digest the realities of this world when subject to modern scrutiny, but there are books over a thousand years old that also very thoroughly depict the nature and behaviors of humanity? Why write it off as "insensible" simply because we do not like that God is not made of rainbows and starlight, or dressed up like superman coming to save the day?

Because they are pretty much in line with their bronze-age times. With all the superstition, cultural values, and myths of the time and place they were written. If you go to China you will find an equal but very different host of superstition dating back to these times (dragons, anybody?).

A long time before more than a tiny fraction of the population knew how to write, a long time before the life expectancy reached 50, a long time before rigorous scientific enquiry existed, and a long time before sophisticated data collection and storage was developed.

We have no idea how precise those texts are, what mental condition the writers were, and we already know most did not date untul daces after the alleged events.

That's why I don't take these seriously. My standards of evidence are much higher for exceptional beliefs that that.

God promises none of that. God says: I made you. You are insignificant compared to me; you would not be here if not for me, and you shall worship me whether you like it or not. Why is he not owed worship and thanks? There is no scientist or doctor on this earth that can successfully create a sperm and egg with his own hands, or keep the veins in your body from suddenly collapsing, or keep the oxygen in the air, nor can you. Who is owed that thanks or respect? Surely, a higher being, whether it be a Judeo Christian God or Zeus, is owed that thanks and respect.

Even if I knew, with 100% certainty that such a God existed, perhaps I would feel grateful, and be respectful of his demeanor if I saw fit. But I would not worship him. I would not submit myself to him. I don't agree with slavery, mind slavery, or cooersion, so this would only go so far.

How is it slavery? Okay, I'm going to assume here that you love your life. You enjoy being able to wake up every morning and carry out day to day tasks. Every time you wake up in the morning, do you believe that it is your own doing? Is it your own doing that you didn't die in your sleep like thousands of others that night?

So no, not slavery, but rather an acknowledgement of praise and respect. You are being granted something you enjoy (life) in exchange for praying a certain amount of times a day, and what you're saying is that it isn't worth it?

Most sins are forgivable if you repent. There are few sins that guarantee a trip to hell in any religious book, all that God asks is that you repent (ask for forgiveness, and mean it wholeheartedly). If you ask me, God is more lenient than the entire justice system of the United States.

He says: here is life, do as you wish but this is what I recommend, but ultimately it is your choice. Thank me, for I brought you here and without me you would be nothing.

So why is it that we can openly digest the realities of this world when subject to modern scrutiny, but there are books over a thousand years old that also very thoroughly depict the nature and behaviors of humanity? Why write it off as "insensible" simply because we do not like that God is not made of rainbows and starlight, or dressed up like superman coming to save the day?

Because they are pretty much in line with their bronze-age times. With all the superstition, cultural values, and myths of the time and place they were written. If you go to China you will find an equal but very different host of superstition dating back to these times (dragons, anybody?).

A long time before more than a tiny fraction of the population knew how to write, a long time before the life expectancy reached 50, a long time before rigorous scientific enquiry existed, and a long time before sophisticated data collection and storage was developed.

We have no idea how precise those texts are, what mental condition the writers were, and we already know most did not date untul daces after the alleged events.

That's why I don't take these seriously. My standards of evidence are much higher for exceptional beliefs that that.

God promises none of that. God says: I made you. You are insignificant compared to me; you would not be here if not for me, and you shall worship me whether you like it or not. Why is he not owed worship and thanks? There is no scientist or doctor on this earth that can successfully create a sperm and egg with his own hands, or keep the veins in your body from suddenly collapsing, or keep the oxygen in the air, nor can you. Who is owed that thanks or respect? Surely, a higher being, whether it be a Judeo Christian God or Zeus, is owed that thanks and respect.

Even if I knew, with 100% certainty that such a God existed, perhaps I would feel grateful, and be respectful of his demeanor if I saw fit. But I would not worship him. I would not submit myself to him. I don't agree with slavery, mind slavery, or cooersion, so this would only go so far.

How is it slavery? Okay, I'm going to assume here that you love your life. You enjoy being able to wake up every morning and carry out day to day tasks. Every time you wake up in the morning, do you believe that it is your own doing? Is it your own doing that you didn't die in your sleep like thousands of others that night?

I'm sorry but anyone who requires their subjects to love and worship them, and to structure every moral aspect of their life around them, or else be subject to eternal torture. Is essentially slavery. Slavery of thought action and liberty.

So no, not slavery, but rather an acknowledgement of praise and respect. You are being granted something you enjoy (life) in exchange for praying a certain amount of times a day, and what you're saying is that it isn't worth it?

I don't see why I should be grateful that millions of my fellow species suffer appalling and obscene conditions of disease famine and thirst. This reminds me of one of those plane crashes, where only a handful of people survived. The ones who survived were saying God was looking after them and I am like 'Ok.... but what about the other 300 people on the flight that suffered the most horrific death'.

No. I don't see any reason to be grateful to such a being for my life. I reserve myself to be humbled, or amazed that I am where I am, but it would be tremendously arrogant to assume it was all done with my being in mind.

Most sins are forgivable if you repent. There are few sins that guarantee a trip to hell in any religious book, all that God asks is that you repent (ask for forgiveness, and mean it wholeheartedly). If you ask me, God is more lenient than the entire justice system of the United States.

Why should I repent for something when I don't believe in sins in the first place? Especially since sin's don't seem to coincide with good morality at all.

He says: here is life, do as you wish but this is what I recommend, but ultimately it is your choice. Thank me, for I brought you here and without me you would be nothing.

It's not slavery. First and foremost, in western religion the hereafter is more important than being here now. Worldly happiness is temporary, whereas eternal happiness is forever. You can trade worldly happiness for eternal happiness, or you can have both at the same time. Unless, you're saying that you have to sin in order to be happy (most if not all sins have some sort of negative affect on yourself or others in the first place, whether you believe them or not).

The people who suffer in this world from famish and other things are not a result of God's will, they are a result of OUR will. Also, it is in human nature to suffer. Even the richest, seemingly most well off individual will suffer (highest rate of suicides are from middle aged white males - typically well off financially). Without suffering, there would be no happiness, or reward for good. Suffering is a necessity of life, and everyone will suffer in one way or another.

I could even argue that you should thank God for your suffering. Without pain or drastic happenings, we could not learn how to be better or grow as individuals. Religious or not, most people will agree on that.

For example: a woman comes into your life, you fall deeply in love with her, she cheats on you has a baby with someone else and tears your heart out. You sink into a deep depression and want to die. A year later, you have accepted that she is no longer in your life, and you understand that she was there for a reason - maybe it was to teach you the Russian alphabet or introduce you to snowboarding, but you are thankful that she came into your life for those seemingly insignificant reasons. You have control over whether or not you choose to regard her entering and leaving your life as a learning experience or a life ruining situations - which is the beauty of free will.

Now, say you are grateful she entered your life, even after all that you've suffered because of her, who then created her?

Interestingly enough, these countries of famish and death you speak of are typically highly religious - whether in the wrong or right way, they usually perceive that their is a higher being. You, who is not suffering from famish, cannot perceive that their is a higher being - not because others are suffering from famish as they are, but because you perceive yourself to be a higher being.

These people suffering in other countries did not ask to be born there - no one asks to be born, or born where they are, you simply are. Once you are, God says it is YOUR choice to believe what you want to believe and worship whom you want to worship, but that He is the one and the only one, and that all thanks are owed to Him.

So you do not believe in a higher being, which suggests that you are the higher being, and you're saying that even if there was a higher being, he would not be deserving of worship because there is suffering in the world?

But Koala bears are higher than me. They eat a certain type of leaves that makes them constantly high. I kid you not.

"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."

At 3/13/2014 1:19:35 PM, Mlcrae wrote:It's not slavery. First and foremost, in western religion the hereafter is more important than being here now. Worldly happiness is temporary, whereas eternal happiness is forever. You can trade worldly happiness for eternal happiness, or you can have both at the same time. Unless, you're saying that you have to sin in order to be happy (most if not all sins have some sort of negative affect on yourself or others in the first place, whether you believe them or not).

You ignored my point regarding the gambit of eternal torture if one does not obey. You can"t ignore all the bad parts and focus on only the good parts. It"s a two-way deal according to your worldview.

Furthermore this is a big beef of the non-believing society. Since we generally don"t believe in an afterlife, it upsets us when we have to suffer additionally in this one life we have because others have taken the "it doesn"t matter this life, there will be greater riches in the next one".The 9/11 bombers believed they were going to paradise. And in doing so they ended 3,000 lives that day in some of the most horrific circumstances. Why should those 3,000 people have suffered because a handful of people who believed in an afterlife decided for themselves that their victims would also experience paradise(which may or may not be true) ?

The people who suffer in this world from famish and other things are not a result of God's will, they are a result of OUR will. Also, it is in human nature to suffer. Even the richest, seemingly most well off individual will suffer (highest rate of suicides are from middle aged white males - typically well off financially). Without suffering, there would be no happiness, or reward for good. Suffering is a necessity of life, and everyone will suffer in one way or another.

Perhaps you should read my argument before auto-pilot responding to my statement. I gave arguments as to why I don"t think I should feel grateful to God, the downed jetliner was a prime example.

I could even argue that you should thank God for your suffering. Without pain or drastic happenings, we could not learn how to be better or grow as individuals. Religious or not, most people will agree on that.

For example: a woman comes into your life, you fall deeply in love with her, she cheats on you has a baby with someone else and tears your heart out. You sink into a deep depression and want to die. A year later, you have accepted that she is no longer in your life, and you understand that she was there for a reason - maybe it was to teach you the Russian alphabet or introduce you to snowboarding, but you are thankful that she came into your life for those seemingly insignificant reasons. You have control over whether or not you choose to regard her entering and leaving your life as a learning experience or a life ruining situations - which is the beauty of free will.

Now, say you are grateful she entered your life, even after all that you've suffered because of her, who then created her?

Again, my being grateful is to accept the presupposition it was given to me by something conscious. Which I do not.

Interestingly enough, these countries of famish and death you speak of are typically highly religious - whether in the wrong or right way, they usually perceive that their is a higher being. You, who is not suffering from famish, cannot perceive that their is a higher being - not because others are suffering from famish as they are, but because you perceive yourself to be a higher being.

Seems to be an argument from emotion. It is true that the worst economically countries have a much higher prevalence of religion & superstition. From the perspective of someone who has taken a step back, it seems blindingly obvious why that is so. And obvious why many religions originated. The core religions were born in bronze-age times, when disease, famine, natural disasters etc were not well understood. It comforts people to believe there is a purpose behind everything, to believe that their mortality is not absolute, and all this pain will eventually be worthwhile.

But just because it derives comfort, doesn"t make it true.

These people suffering in other countries did not ask to be born there - no one asks to be born, or born where they are, you simply are. Once you are, God says it is YOUR choice to believe what you want to believe and worship whom you want to worship, but that He is the one and the only one, and that all thanks are owed to Him.

It seems that death is preferable to life in many circumstances. Therefore those in deep suffering and pain I don"t think should feel grateful, no.

So you do not believe in a higher being, which suggests that you are the higher being, and you're saying that even if there was a higher being, he would not be deserving of worship because there is suffering in the world?

I would not worship God even if it was my creator, and created me with a purpose in its mind. No. I would not. For the values I hold here make me reject the notion that "worship" entails. I do not worship my Mother and Father, when I believe they brought about my existence, so why would I worship God?

At 3/13/2014 11:23:33 AM, Mlcrae wrote:Instead of arguing the specifics of religious text, I would like to explore the basis of religion itself.

First and foremost, religion is not a debate of science. I know that many will highly disagree, but if science was created by man, and we have concluded that the universe itself was not created by a man,

Biomystic: Stop right there. Right there you have made an absolute statement about the universe that you cannot possibly prove logically. And all I have to do to utterly destroy your atheist ideology is point out this to you: Logic of History of human knowledge acquisition and consequent abilities to manipulate our environmental conditions.

The logic of history of human beings shows a most clear pattern of knowledge acquisition and consequent greater abilities to manipulate things. You atheists have never thought this one through any more than Muhammad did when he too tried to freeze all human knowledge at his 7th Century level. You are only upping the century levels but the Logic still holds, the past doesn't stop future evolutionary development. What this means is that when an objective person looks at the human record what stands out is a consistent growing acquisition of knowledge over all and consequent human powers. Now here is your lesson in the Logic of History: In the past 200 years human beings have gone from heating their homes with wood and coal, dung and peat, to being able to match the energy of the sun on earth. In the past 200 years human beings have gone from horse and buggies to landing on the moon and sending ships into deep inter-galactic space. This is 2014. What will we be able to do in 3014? 5014? 10,014? projecting the rate of changes we have exhibited so far?

Atheists. Go rent the old Sci-Fi Star-Trek prototype movie, Forbidden Planet made in 1958 I think. In that movie there is the Krell Machine powered by the interior nuclear energy of a planet that can turn Thought into Matter which is the ancient definition of the power of a God. This is our destiny and who are you at 2014 to say no? We can't become God and we couldn't have already made the Universe and placed Life in it to evolve eventually into Intelligence, then Humanity, then God? Logic informs the wise that no atheist living in our times can predict the stoppage of human evolution that includes human advancement towards godlike ability and identity at the end.

First and foremost, religion is not a debate of science. I know that many will highly disagree, but if science was created by man, and we have concluded that the universe itself was not created by a man, then how can science explain something beyond scientific reasoning (or put simply, beyond human reasoning?). How do you explain the unexplainable with something explainable?

Nothing is unexplainable to those who understand them. They are only unexplainable to those who do not understand them.

A lot of people will argue that it is as simple as using sensibility. You cannot deduce that you can drink a gallon of bleach and as long as you pray to God, you will not die. Evidence has proved countless of times that these individuals will either die or suffer greatly, regardless of prayer. However, I do not believe that God (across any religious book) has ever stated that if you cause willful harm to yourself, he will save you as long as you pray to him. In fact, across any western religious book, I do not believe that God promises anything other than death. So is believing in God really a question of sensibility?

All life ends in death regardless of whether you believe in any God or not. Believers and unbelievers all end up in the grave.

My counter to these arguments goes as follows: Isn't the very nature of humanity contradicting in itself? Why is it so difficult for us to comprehend something equally as contradicting? Western religion tells us a lot of things but for one, and what non-religious and religious people seem to gather from it is that a) it is contradictory and b) it is an elaboration of the basis of humanity/it is attempting to explain the basis of humanity, our nature, and where we come from.

All of life is an eternal paradox which seems to contradict itself in the process of destroying itself while it also reproduces itself.

God promises none of that. God says: I made you. You are insignificant compared to me; you would not be here if not for me, and you shall worship me whether you like it or not. Why is he not owed worship and thanks? There is no scientist or doctor on this earth that can successfully create a sperm and egg with his own hands, or keep the veins in your body from suddenly collapsing, or keep the oxygen in the air, nor can you. Who is owed that thanks or respect? Surely, a higher being, whether it be a Judeo Christian God or Zeus, is owed that thanks and respect.

No Supernatural God made anyone. Humans created humans in the image of humans. They still do today and always will. That is a FACT which can be observed. No belief in magic or in invisible supernatural beings is necessary.

I believe that we like to think that we're in control of things, and that we are much smarter than we actually are. Ironically, every western religion or philosophical religion such as Buddhism, or pretty much anyone looking to affirm a different, healthier lifestyle, conforms to what is called "ego death". It is a very difficult thing to do but it is also enlightening. I encourage anyone who reads this to then re-read it without ego, without the notion that you know anything at all because truthfully, you do not--religion confirms this; religion says: you do not know anything, you are blind, and let me guide you here. It is not something you can counter with human logic, so to counter it at all suggest that you consider yourself to already be a higher being who knows everything. It would also suggest that you created yourself and therefore have complete control over the happenings of your being, such as preventing yourself from being born with congestive heart failure.

To know that you know nothing you need to know something. To be aware of any knowledge or lack of knowledge at all means you need to at least know what knowledge is. Therefore you must know something and are lying to yourself if you claim to know nothing.Life creates life after its own kind. That cycle is an eternal process. It has no beginning or end but is self sustaining.What is your definition of a higher being? Higher compared to what?In the womb the body does indeed create itself automatically through cell division. The "plan" or "blueprint" of the body is in its own DNA.

It implies a lot to say that you know with certainty that there is no God, and in doing so you have to be willing to prove it just as atheist often ask people of faith to prove the existence of God. Do we not prove you wrong by simply suggesting that you who speaks is not God? Humans are not smart. We have built things that have both helped humanity and destroyed them. We control our machines but we do not, and cannot ever control the earth or universe and life itself. Yet, we think ourselves supreme when a meteor could wipe us out tomorrow?

Whether one claims there is a God or there is not a God depends on how they perceive and define the word God.If one Greek myth or God is nothing but a fictional character, why should any other God in any other culture or tradition be more real than any other Greek mythical gods?Whether one thinks themselves to be supreme or not depends on what they compare themselves.It is all subjective and means nothing without a point of reference.

I am really curious to read an atheist's response to this.

I am not an Atheist but I do understand the Atheist point of view that no mythical character is real and all Gods are mythical characters.The CONCEPT of God obviously exists in this world but that does not make any Gods real any more than the concept of Santa makes the magic man at the North pole real. Humans are Santa and humans are also creators ( gods). Humans have created gods in their own image.

I am politely asking for science to be left out of this because as I mentioned before, this is not a scientific debate or a debate of scripture. I am simply debating the notion that God cannot exist because it is illogical and insensible.

It is perfectly sensible to understand that mythical characters do not exist in reality. It is also perfectly sensible to believe that ALL gods are mythical characters. It is illogical and irrational to believe that some invisible gods are myths and others are not. If you wish to believe one invisible supernatural being is real you might as well believe all gods are real and not consider any to be mythical.

Gods are nothing but personified versions of LIFE which include human emotions and intangible human concepts.To believe any supernatural God created the universe is as silly as believing an invisible being called Mother Nature created all of Nature and expects to be thanked and worshiped for providing living things with daily food etc.

Father God and Mother Nature are nothing but personified versions of LIFE taking care of life as well as destroying life.

The spiritually blind atheist drones on and on trying to convince herself her ridiculous atheist Deism = religion. No, skyangle, no matter how many posts you make trying to erase God and spiritual Archetypes that never die and DO run human lives like puppets on strings, yours included, you can't ever stop the Collective Unconscious we know of as "God". THEY are much more powerful than your ego idea. Sorry.

Proof of Their spiritual power? That Bible you think is so filled with nonsense yet you use it to shore up you atheist beliefs in your schizoid Deism that refuses to recognize God or spiritual reality yet claims not to be A-Theistic, that Bible is the work of spiritual power of these very same Archetypes running your life through religious symbolism accepted and used as social structuring. Your Nature "Truth" or "Life" being quite unable to speak to human beings other than teach them the old hunting and gathering lifestyle that agricultural civilization made obsolete. Religion of God coincided with city building while Nature worship lost out in the country because the spiritual juice was with God and not Nature. A personal God at that, skyangle, one very active in guiding human lives that you're philosophy disallows you to see.

Why do you post everyday you same philosophy? Who is helped by it when you have been proven to not know what you're talking about with our Jewish Scriptures or logically with your contradictory Deist-Atheism that puts the the word God onto meaningless generalizations, "Truth", "Life", each only being words that cannot possibly in themselves act or propel human beings. "Life" is God is like saying "Oh, what a pretty sunset! It's like the face of God. Let's get stoned and make out." In other words, conveying nothing more than animal awareness sparking animal instincts, ones that spiritual consciousness only overcomes in human behavior.

At 3/13/2014 11:23:33 AM, Mlcrae wrote:Instead of arguing the specifics of religious text, I would like to explore the basis of religion itself.

First and foremost, religion is not a debate of science. I know that many will highly disagree, but if science was created by man, and we have concluded that the universe itself was not created by a man, then how can science explain something beyond scientific reasoning (or put simply, beyond human reasoning?). How do you explain the unexplainable with something explainable?

A lot of people will argue that it is as simple as using sensibility. You cannot deduce that you can drink a gallon of bleach and as long as you pray to God, you will not die. Evidence has proved countless of times that these individuals will either die or suffer greatly, regardless of prayer. However, I do not believe that God (across any religious book) has ever stated that if you cause willful harm to yourself, he will save you as long as you pray to him. In fact, across any western religious book, I do not believe that God promises anything other than death. So is believing in God really a question of sensibility?

One of the most controversial arguments having to do with religion is its inconsistencies and contradictory nature. The violent vehemence of God largely contradicts the notion that he is all-knowing and all-good.People believe that there are "unnecessary" evils that happen everyday without divine intervention, and that therefore God cannot be all-good, and that if he is, then he is not all-knowing of these evils.My counter to these arguments goes as follows: Isn't the very nature of humanity contradicting in itself? Why is it so difficult for us to comprehend something equally as contradicting? Western religion tells us a lot of things but for one, and what non-religious and religious people seem to gather from it is that a) it is contradictory and b) it is an elaboration of the basis of humanity/it is attempting to explain the basis of humanity, our nature, and where we come from.

When you read the bible or the Koran, you might cringe at the words on the page but you might also do the same if you watch the 5 o'clock news everyday. So why is it that we can openly digest the realities of this world when subject to modern scrutiny, but there are books over a thousand years old that also very thoroughly depict the nature and behaviors of humanity? Why write it off as "insensible" simply because we do not like that God is not made of rainbows and starlight, or dressed up like superman coming to save the day?

God promises none of that. God says: I made you. You are insignificant compared to me; you would not be here if not for me, and you shall worship me whether you like it or not. Why is he not owed worship and thanks? There is no scientist or doctor on this earth that can successfully create a sperm and egg with his own hands, or keep the veins in your body from suddenly collapsing, or keep the oxygen in the air, nor can you. Who is owed that thanks or respect? Surely, a higher being, whether it be a Judeo Christian God or Zeus, is owed that thanks and respect.

I believe that we like to think that we're in control of things, and that we are much smarter than we actually are. Ironically, every western religion or philosophical religion such as Buddhism, or pretty much anyone looking to affirm a different, healthier lifestyle, conforms to what is called "ego death". It is a very difficult thing to do but it is also enlightening. I encourage anyone who reads this to then re-read it without ego, without the notion that you know anything at all because truthfully, you do not--religion confirms this; religion says: you do not know anything, you are blind, and let me guide you here. It is not something you can counter with human logic, so to counter it at all suggest that you consider yourself to already be a higher being who knows everything. It would also suggest that you created yourself and therefore have complete control over the happenings of your being, such as preventing yourself from being born with congestive heart failure.

It implies a lot to say that you know with certainty that there is no God, and in doing so you have to be willing to prove it just as atheist often ask people of faith to prove the existence of God. Do we not prove you wrong by simply suggesting that you who speaks is not God? Humans are not smart. We have built things that have both helped humanity and destroyed them. We control our machines but we do not, and cannot ever control the earth or universe and life itself. Yet, we think ourselves supreme when a meteor could wipe us out tomorrow?

I am really curious to read an atheist's response to this.I am politely asking for science to be left out of this because as I mentioned before, this is not a scientific debate or a debate of scripture. I am simply debating the notion that God cannot exist because it is illogical and insensible.

Thanks.

If you look into a mirror and ask your "SELF" what's beyond the image you see in the mirror, expect the image to make you believe that the real "SELF" is what you're looking at. If you can get past this lie, then you'll find the answer to your "TRUE SELF". However, the image in the mirror is a very strong delusion that has deceived ALL God's people. Only God's saints and a few believers have learned what that "image" in the mirror is and what our true "SELF" means.

So why is it that we can openly digest the realities of this world when subject to modern scrutiny, but there are books over a thousand years old that also very thoroughly depict the nature and behaviors of humanity? Why write it off as "insensible" simply because we do not like that God is not made of rainbows and starlight, or dressed up like superman coming to save the day?

Because they are pretty much in line with their bronze-age times. With all the superstition, cultural values, and myths of the time and place they were written. If you go to China you will find an equal but very different host of superstition dating back to these times (dragons, anybody?).

A long time before more than a tiny fraction of the population knew how to write, a long time before the life expectancy reached 50, a long time before rigorous scientific enquiry existed, and a long time before sophisticated data collection and storage was developed.

We have no idea how precise those texts are, what mental condition the writers were, and we already know most did not date untul daces after the alleged events.

That's why I don't take these seriously. My standards of evidence are much higher for exceptional beliefs that that.

God promises none of that. God says: I made you. You are insignificant compared to me; you would not be here if not for me, and you shall worship me whether you like it or not. Why is he not owed worship and thanks? There is no scientist or doctor on this earth that can successfully create a sperm and egg with his own hands, or keep the veins in your body from suddenly collapsing, or keep the oxygen in the air, nor can you. Who is owed that thanks or respect? Surely, a higher being, whether it be a Judeo Christian God or Zeus, is owed that thanks and respect.

Even if I knew, with 100% certainty that such a God existed, perhaps I would feel grateful, and be respectful of his demeanor if I saw fit. But I would not worship him. I would not submit myself to him. I don't agree with slavery, mind slavery, or cooersion, so this would only go so far.

How is it slavery? Okay, I'm going to assume here that you love your life. You enjoy being able to wake up every morning and carry out day to day tasks. Every time you wake up in the morning, do you believe that it is your own doing? Is it your own doing that you didn't die in your sleep like thousands of others that night?

I'm sorry but anyone who requires their subjects to love and worship them, and to structure every moral aspect of their life around them, or else be subject to eternal torture. Is essentially slavery. Slavery of thought action and liberty.

So no, not slavery, but rather an acknowledgement of praise and respect. You are being granted something you enjoy (life) in exchange for praying a certain amount of times a day, and what you're saying is that it isn't worth it?

I don't see why I should be grateful that millions of my fellow species suffer appalling and obscene conditions of disease famine and thirst. This reminds me of one of those plane crashes, where only a handful of people survived. The ones who survived were saying God was looking after them and I am like 'Ok.... but what about the other 300 people on the flight that suffered the most horrific death'.

No. I don't see any reason to be grateful to such a being for my life. I reserve myself to be humbled, or amazed that I am where I am, but it would be tremendously arrogant to assume it was all done with my being in mind.

Most sins are forgivable if you repent. There are few sins that guarantee a trip to hell in any religious book, all that God asks is that you repent (ask for forgiveness, and mean it wholeheartedly). If you ask me, God is more lenient than the entire justice system of the United States.

Why should I repent for something when I don't believe in sins in the first place? Especially since sin's don't seem to coincide with good morality at all.

He says: here is life, do as you wish but this is what I recommend, but ultimately it is your choice. Thank me, for I brought you here and without me you would be nothing.

We have free will; we are in no way slaves.

In all fairness, it seems to me as if you are no longer seeing the Bible as an allegorical book here. You can't claim that it is allegorical when it's handy to do so, then quote it specifically when it suits your purpose better. How do we know that it's not simply right to love other sentient beings, including God? Doesn't the Bible tell us to love our neighbors as well? When it comes to slavery, mightn't the message be that it's better to object with peace and reason than to reject with force, at least when necessary? Most of us are slaves today, although we've been fooled into believing otherwise. The separation of wealth is greater today than it has ever been. You ask some good questions and make some good points, but it seems obvious that you are supporting an agenda. In any disagreement the truth usually lies close to the middle. If a sentient God does exist then the importance rests with our eternal being, not some extremely temporary state. A man who resorts to violence may make some difference, but not nearly as much as a man who becomes a true martyr to his faith. Of course few people possess this kind of courage, but when they do it can change the world. I'm not religious, nor am I am atheist, but I am fascinated by the balances of existence. No matter which reality a person accepts we know for certain that it is highly unlikely.

In all fairness, it seems to me as if you are no longer seeing the Bible as an allegorical book here. You can't claim that it is allegorical when it's handy to do so, then quote it specifically when it suits your purpose better. How do we know that it's not simply right to love other sentient beings, including God? Doesn't the Bible tell us to love our neighbors as well?

If I have rejected the bible as an authority, it does without saying I reject everything that it says because it says it.,Anything I might agree with are not because the Bible says as much. The bible has everyone one can expect of a bronze age tale, some good bits and bad bits.

If people are going o take it as an authority, on both the good and what I see are the bad or even disgusting parts, then I am going to clamp down on where I don't agree with it. Do you hear the stories of the 9/11 bomber's family lifes, or how well they contributed to their neighbors? No you don't, the bad parts stand out much more. Especially when it's needless.

When it comes to slavery, mightn't the message be that it's better to object with peace and reason than to reject with force, at least when necessary? Most of us are slaves today, although we've been fooled into believing otherwise. The separation of wealth is greater today than it has ever been. You ask some good questions and make some good points, but it seems obvious that you are supporting an agenda.

Possibly on the latter part, I am anti-theistic biased. Especially given that I find even the most pacifistic religions, such as Jainism, ultimately harmful. Although I would not find a shift to such a bad thing.

We do know form experience however, when you take away the freedom of thought, and speech, then any regime becomes totalitarian. Hitler, North Korea, Soviets, and the religious ones today such as Saudi, Pakistan, Egypt. This is something unique to Christianity (which is the main religion where I live), where one gets punished for what they think. And in current day Islam and the long-long past Christianity, blasphemy is punishable, often by death.

In any disagreement the truth usually lies close to the middle. If a sentient God does exist then the importance rests with our eternal being, not some extremely temporary state. A man who resorts to violence may make some difference, but not nearly as much as a man who becomes a true martyr to his faith. Of course few people possess this kind of courage, but when they do it can change the world.

Plenty of people however possess the courage to judge others, transform the state based on their dubious beliefs. Come on, Marriage Rights, Slavery, Homosexuality, Education, Abortions, Euthanasia? Just to name a few.

I'm not religious, nor am I am atheist, but I am fascinated by the balances of existence. No matter which reality a person accepts we know for certain that it is highly unlikely.

In all fairness, it seems to me as if you are no longer seeing the Bible as an allegorical book here. You can't claim that it is allegorical when it's handy to do so, then quote it specifically when it suits your purpose better. How do we know that it's not simply right to love other sentient beings, including God? Doesn't the Bible tell us to love our neighbors as well?

If I have rejected the bible as an authority, it does without saying I reject everything that it says because it says it.,Anything I might agree with are not because the Bible says as much. The bible has everyone one can expect of a bronze age tale, some good bits and bad bits.

So when the Bible says that under-cooked pork is dangerous then you're going to go out and eat it just for spite? I admit that's an extreme example, but...the Bible is a book like any other book. There are things you can learn from it and things you should ignore. A wise person realizes this and pays attention to tell the difference. Heck, the story of Charlemagne has everything one can expect of a bronze-age tale. There's a lesson there, too, though.

If people are going o take it as an authority, on both the good and what I see are the bad or even disgusting parts, then I am going to clamp down on where I don't agree with it. Do you hear the stories of the 9/11 bomber's family lifes, or how well they contributed to their neighbors? No you don't, the bad parts stand out much more. Especially when it's needless.

That's the problem. There shouldn't be any "clamping down." The US totally overreacted to 9/11, and as a result caused far more suffering to innocent people than had already happened. I say this as a patriotic American citizen and former service member.

When it comes to slavery, mightn't the message be that it's better to object with peace and reason than to reject with force, at least when necessary? Most of us are slaves today, although we've been fooled into believing otherwise. The separation of wealth is greater today than it has ever been. You ask some good questions and make some good points, but it seems obvious that you are supporting an agenda.

Possibly on the latter part, I am anti-theistic biased. Especially given that I find even the most pacifistic religions, such as Jainism, ultimately harmful. Although I would not find a shift to such a bad thing.

Yes, they are harmful at times. But they are very good at other times. The same is true of capitalism, nationalism, and even democracy. Religious institutions provide more aid to needy people than most governments do. Even during Roman times Emperor Constantine became a Christian because he was impressed by the manner in which Christians stayed-put to help strangers with the plague when their own families had deserted them. He hoped the power of such a people's "God" could save the Roman Empire. So I think we should give respect where it is due.

We do know form experience however, when you take away the freedom of thought, and speech, then any regime becomes totalitarian. Hitler, North Korea, Soviets, and the religious ones today such as Saudi, Pakistan, Egypt. This is something unique to Christianity (which is the main religion where I live), where one gets punished for what they think. And in current day Islam and the long-long past Christianity, blasphemy is punishable, often by death.

That's right: the Soviet Union, Maoist China, Cambodia - all openly atheist, yet responsible for more deaths than WW2. People will always find reasons to oppress others, or even to kill. Usually it's because they have something to gain.

In any disagreement the truth usually lies close to the middle. If a sentient God does exist then the importance rests with our eternal being, not some extremely temporary state. A man who resorts to violence may make some difference, but not nearly as much as a man who becomes a true martyr to his faith. Of course few people possess this kind of courage, but when they do it can change the world.

Plenty of people however possess the courage to judge others, transform the state based on their dubious beliefs. Come on, Marriage Rights, Slavery, Homosexuality, Education, Abortions, Euthanasia? Just to name a few.

Yes, they do, and it is patently wrong. It's one thing to judge an act (even murder) but quite another to judge the person who commits it. We can't walk in their shoes. We should judge them only when it becomes necessary to protect ourselves, our families and our societies.

I'm not religious, nor am I am atheist, but I am fascinated by the balances of existence. No matter which reality a person accepts we know for certain that it is highly unlikely.

In all fairness, it seems to me as if you are no longer seeing the Bible as an allegorical book here. You can't claim that it is allegorical when it's handy to do so, then quote it specifically when it suits your purpose better. How do we know that it's not simply right to love other sentient beings, including God? Doesn't the Bible tell us to love our neighbors as well?

If I have rejected the bible as an authority, it does without saying I reject everything that it says because it says it.,Anything I might agree with are not because the Bible says as much. The bible has everyone one can expect of a bronze age tale, some good bits and bad bits.

So when the Bible says that under-cooked pork is dangerous then you're going to go out and eat it just for spite? I admit that's an extreme example, but...the Bible is a book like any other book. There are things you can learn from it and things you should ignore. A wise person realizes this and pays attention to tell the difference. Heck, the story of Charlemagne has everything one can expect of a bronze-age tale. There's a lesson there, too, though.

I think you read that differently to how i wrote it. But OK.

If people are going o take it as an authority, on both the good and what I see are the bad or even disgusting parts, then I am going to clamp down on where I don't agree with it. Do you hear the stories of the 9/11 bomber's family lifes, or how well they contributed to their neighbors? No you don't, the bad parts stand out much more. Especially when it's needless.

That's the problem. There shouldn't be any "clamping down." The US totally overreacted to 9/11, and as a result caused far more suffering to innocent people than had already happened. I say this as a patriotic American citizen and former service member.

As a former service member, did you do any work in Afghanistan/Iraq? If so then you already know first hand how religion drives those to do what most would consider immoral things where it would have been unlikely otherwise.

When it comes to slavery, mightn't the message be that it's better to object with peace and reason than to reject with force, at least when necessary? Most of us are slaves today, although we've been fooled into believing otherwise. The separation of wealth is greater today than it has ever been. You ask some good questions and make some good points, but it seems obvious that you are supporting an agenda.

Possibly on the latter part, I am anti-theistic biased. Especially given that I find even the most pacifistic religions, such as Jainism, ultimately harmful. Although I would not find a shift to such a bad thing.

Yes, they are harmful at times. But they are very good at other times. The same is true of capitalism, nationalism, and even democracy. Religious institutions provide more aid to needy people than most governments do.

1. Since >90% of people are religious, it doesn't seem very surprising they win out in internal charities via sheer numbers over secular ones.

2. Do they really do more good than harm? AIDS in Africa anybody?

3. Missionary requirements.

Even during Roman times Emperor Constantine became a Christian because he was impressed by the manner in which Christians stayed-put to help strangers with the plague when their own families had deserted them. He hoped the power of such a people's "God" could save the Roman Empire. So I think we should give respect where it is due.

We do know form experience however, when you take away the freedom of thought, and speech, then any regime becomes totalitarian. Hitler, North Korea, Soviets, and the religious ones today such as Saudi, Pakistan, Egypt. This is something unique to Christianity (which is the main religion where I live), where one gets punished for what they think. And in current day Islam and the long-long past Christianity, blasphemy is punishable, often by death.

That's right: the Soviet Union, Maoist China, Cambodia - all openly atheist, yet responsible for more deaths than WW2. People will always find reasons to oppress others, or even to kill. Usually it's because they have something to gain.

Atheism doesn't get you anywhere. Similarly to the term 'teism'. So I really don't see your argument there. In fact most of the examples raised are under the clockwork very much alike religion in the way they were executed, with a totalitarian regime what emerged.

Similarly 'theism' has no dogma until it is assosiated with a specific god belief, with specific attributes which have an effect on behaviour.

In any disagreement the truth usually lies close to the middle. If a sentient God does exist then the importance rests with our eternal being, not some extremely temporary state. A man who resorts to violence may make some difference, but not nearly as much as a man who becomes a true martyr to his faith. Of course few people possess this kind of courage, but when they do it can change the world.

Plenty of people however possess the courage to judge others, transform the state based on their dubious beliefs. Come on, Marriage Rights, Slavery, Homosexuality, Education, Abortions, Euthanasia? Just to name a few.

Yes, they do, and it is patently wrong. It's one thing to judge an act (even murder) but quite another to judge the person who commits it. We can't walk in their shoes. We should judge them only when it becomes necessary to protect ourselves, our families and our societies.

I'm not religious, nor am I am atheist, but I am fascinated by the balances of existence. No matter which reality a person accepts we know for certain that it is highly unlikely.

In all fairness, it seems to me as if you are no longer seeing the Bible as an allegorical book here. You can't claim that it is allegorical when it's handy to do so, then quote it specifically when it suits your purpose better. How do we know that it's not simply right to love other sentient beings, including God? Doesn't the Bible tell us to love our neighbors as well?

If I have rejected the bible as an authority, it does without saying I reject everything that it says because it says it.,Anything I might agree with are not because the Bible says as much. The bible has everyone one can expect of a bronze age tale, some good bits and bad bits.

So when the Bible says that under-cooked pork is dangerous then you're going to go out and eat it just for spite? I admit that's an extreme example, but...the Bible is a book like any other book. There are things you can learn from it and things you should ignore. A wise person realizes this and pays attention to tell the difference. Heck, the story of Charlemagne has everything one can expect of a bronze-age tale. There's a lesson there, too, though.

I think you read that differently to how i wrote it. But OK.

My apologies...

If people are going o take it as an authority, on both the good and what I see are the bad or even disgusting parts, then I am going to clamp down on where I don't agree with it. Do you hear the stories of the 9/11 bomber's family lifes, or how well they contributed to their neighbors? No you don't, the bad parts stand out much more. Especially when it's needless.

That's the problem. There shouldn't be any "clamping down." The US totally overreacted to 9/11, and as a result caused far more suffering to innocent people than had already happened. I say this as a patriotic American citizen and former service member.

As a former service member, did you do any work in Afghanistan/Iraq? If so then you already know first hand how religion drives those to do what most would consider immoral things where it would have been unlikely otherwise.

I am aware of how religion sometimes drives people to awful deeds. I also know that there are many secular reasons for doing the same thing. I would guess that greed is probably the greatest of all. Even the 1st Crusade was sold to the European nobles as a ticket to land and riches. You should go back and read the Pope's speech. There are a lot of people in this world who are simply cruel, unfeeling, psychopathic, etc. Many use religion as their claim to power, but any other reason will do as well.

When it comes to slavery, mightn't the message be that it's better to object with peace and reason than to reject with force, at least when necessary? Most of us are slaves today, although we've been fooled into believing otherwise. The separation of wealth is greater today than it has ever been. You ask some good questions and make some good points, but it seems obvious that you are supporting an agenda.

Possibly on the latter part, I am anti-theistic biased. Especially given that I find even the most pacifistic religions, such as Jainism, ultimately harmful. Although I would not find a shift to such a bad thing.

Yes, they are harmful at times. But they are very good at other times. The same is true of capitalism, nationalism, and even democracy. Religious institutions provide more aid to needy people than most governments do.

1. Since >90% of people are religious, it doesn't seem very surprising they win out in internal charities via sheer numbers over secular ones.

Surely you are aware that the great majority are "Sunday Believers"? I mean, you've just been stating yourself how evil religion can be, and now you are saying that it actually promotes charity? Why do you think that Catholic churches are usually so expensively ornate, and the Papacy is rich beyond measure? It didn't happen from giving it all away. Most of the true charity comes from ordinary people who feel some sense of morality without any commitment due to a religious affiliation.

2. Do they really do more good than harm? AIDS in Africa anybody?

3. Missionary requirements.

Even during Roman times Emperor Constantine became a Christian because he was impressed by the manner in which Christians stayed-put to help strangers with the plague when their own families had deserted them. He hoped the power of such a people's "God" could save the Roman Empire. So I think we should give respect where it is due.

We do know form experience however, when you take away the freedom of thought, and speech, then any regime becomes totalitarian. Hitler, North Korea, Soviets, and the religious ones today such as Saudi, Pakistan, Egypt. This is something unique to Christianity (which is the main religion where I live), where one gets punished for what they think. And in current day Islam and the long-long past Christianity, blasphemy is punishable, often by death.

That's right: the Soviet Union, Maoist China, Cambodia - all openly atheist, yet responsible for more deaths than WW2. People will always find reasons to oppress others, or even to kill. Usually it's because they have something to gain.

Atheism doesn't get you anywhere. Similarly to the term 'teism'. So I really don't see your argument there. In fact most of the examples raised are under the clockwork very much alike religion in the way they were executed, with a totalitarian regime what emerged.

I merely used the term because they seemed so intent to make their atheism clear. I personally couldn't care less. A person is the sum of his actions, not his claims.

Similarly 'theism' has no dogma until it is assosiated with a specific god belief, with specific attributes which have an effect on behaviour.

In any disagreement the truth usually lies close to the middle. If a sentient God does exist then the importance rests with our eternal being, not some extremely temporary state. A man who resorts to violence may make some difference, but not nearly as much as a man who becomes a true martyr to his faith. Of course few people possess this kind of courage, but when they do it can change the world.

Plenty of people however possess the courage to judge others, transform the state based on their dubious beliefs. Come on, Marriage Rights, Slavery, Homosexuality, Education, Abortions, Euthanasia? Just to name a few.

Yes, they do, and it is patently wrong. It's one thing to judge an act (even murder) but quite another to judge the person who commits it. We can't walk in their shoes. We should judge them only when it becomes necessary to protect ourselves, our families and our societies.

I'm not religious, nor am I am atheist, but I am fascinated by the balances of existence. No matter which reality a person accepts we know for certain that it is highly unlikely.

Yes, they are harmful at times. But they are very good at other times. The same is true of capitalism, nationalism, and even democracy. Religious institutions provide more aid to needy people than most governments do.

1. Since >90% of people are religious, it doesn't seem very surprising they win out in internal charities via sheer numbers over secular ones.

Surely you are aware that the great majority are "Sunday Believers"? I mean, you've just been stating yourself how evil religion can be, and now you are saying that it actually promotes charity? Why do you think that Catholic churches are usually so expensively ornate, and the Papacy is rich beyond measure? It didn't happen from giving it all away. Most of the true charity comes from ordinary people who feel some sense of morality without any commitment due to a religious affiliation.

Oh... I finally understand where you are coming from. I never once said "Sunday Believers" have no sense of morality or charity. I would argue it's rather artificial however, as every action is made with the notion of heaven/hell in mind.

If charity/good moral deeds are performed in part only because of the "Celestial Surveillance", and the appalling ones (some of which i listed and attacked in the previous post) also because of their beliefs. Then I think its safe to conclude religion is a bad think. As it drives good people to do bad things.. and cheapens the good things they do do.

But then... if you want population control... the best way is something akin to religion... We could invent a so much better religion right now between the two of us. If you accept that much then surely the secular approach, which is a blank slate and open to debate & open to changing its idea depending on the evidence, surely that approach is the better one for society.

2. Do they really do more good than harm? AIDS in Africa anybody?

3. Missionary requirements.

Even during Roman times Emperor Constantine became a Christian because he was impressed by the manner in which Christians stayed-put to help strangers with the plague when their own families had deserted them. He hoped the power of such a people's "God" could save the Roman Empire. So I think we should give respect where it is due.

We do know form experience however, when you take away the freedom of thought, and speech, then any regime becomes totalitarian. Hitler, North Korea, Soviets, and the religious ones today such as Saudi, Pakistan, Egypt. This is something unique to Christianity (which is the main religion where I live), where one gets punished for what they think. And in current day Islam and the long-long past Christianity, blasphemy is punishable, often by death.

That's right: the Soviet Union, Maoist China, Cambodia - all openly atheist, yet responsible for more deaths than WW2. People will always find reasons to oppress others, or even to kill. Usually it's because they have something to gain.

Atheism doesn't get you anywhere. Similarly to the term 'teism'. So I really don't see your argument there. In fact most of the examples raised are under the clockwork very much alike religion in the way they were executed, with a totalitarian regime what emerged.

I merely used the term because they seemed so intent to make their atheism clear. I personally couldn't care less. A person is the sum of his actions, not his claims.

Similarly 'theism' has no dogma until it is assosiated with a specific god belief, with specific attributes which have an effect on behaviour.

In any disagreement the truth usually lies close to the middle. If a sentient God does exist then the importance rests with our eternal being, not some extremely temporary state. A man who resorts to violence may make some difference, but not nearly as much as a man who becomes a true martyr to his faith. Of course few people possess this kind of courage, but when they do it can change the world.

Plenty of people however possess the courage to judge others, transform the state based on their dubious beliefs. Come on, Marriage Rights, Slavery, Homosexuality, Education, Abortions, Euthanasia? Just to name a few.

Yes, they do, and it is patently wrong. It's one thing to judge an act (even murder) but quite another to judge the person who commits it. We can't walk in their shoes. We should judge them only when it becomes necessary to protect ourselves, our families and our societies.

I'm not religious, nor am I am atheist, but I am fascinated by the balances of existence. No matter which reality a person accepts we know for certain that it is highly unlikely.

At 3/13/2014 2:27:50 PM, zmikecuber wrote:I've never been high in my life. I said no to drugs.

But Koala bears are higher than me. They eat a certain type of leaves that makes them constantly high. I kid you not.

There is no such thing as a koala bear.

Ha ! Koala bears ;D But they have cubs right ?

"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness." - Max Planck

At 3/13/2014 2:27:50 PM, zmikecuber wrote:I've never been high in my life. I said no to drugs.

But Koala bears are higher than me. They eat a certain type of leaves that makes them constantly high. I kid you not.

There is no such thing as a koala bear.

Ha ! Koala bears ;D But they have cubs right ?

NO

It was a joke, not an actual question.

"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness." - Max Planck

Religion stems from the advanced level of consciousness man has. No other species bear religion, not because they are more rational, but because they are less so. The same spirit of final causes in religion is even pervasive in science, especially physics and the quest to establish quantum gravity (the TOE). That aside, I don't think one can run away ftom illogic: it's like trying to run away from your shadow, or making an object that has no backside. I have concluded that illogic is present in any stance. Any school of thought is based on presuppositions and necessarily has flaws.

As it applies to contradictions in religion, looked one way, it holds weight, looked another way it does not. Take for example, the question of evil even as it applies to a belief in hell. I find it interesting it is one of the most potent arguments against God precisely because (again looked one way) it is the most irrational. Why ? Because the goodness or 'badness' of God has no bearing whatsoever on whether He exists. It stands to reason that anyone who denies Bin Laden existed because of the bad things he did is being foolish. The best theodicy can show is that a strictly omnibenevolent God is contradicted by evil in the world. It isn't so much an argument from reason but one from sentiment. Though on the flipside, it calls into question to the reasons we submit our morality to a God with such a bad rep, and furthermore shatters the need to believe in a God for morals as opposed to oneself.

As to whether we are higher beings, sure we are. Man stands supreme amongst the animals. Dissenters can put their mouth on the money and live in the jungle. But then, in the larger scheme of things, man is less than a fleck of possibilities the Infinite Intelligence can make.

"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness." - Max Planck

At 3/16/2014 8:30:55 AM, Iredia wrote:Religion stems from the advanced level of consciousness man has. No other species bear religion, not because they are more rational, but because they are less so. The same spirit of final causes in religion is even pervasive in science, especially physics and the quest to establish quantum gravity (the TOE). That aside, I don't think one can run away ftom illogic: it's like trying to run away from your shadow, or making an object that has no backside. I have concluded that illogic is present in any stance. Any school of thought is based on presuppositions and necessarily has flaws.

As it applies to contradictions in religion, looked one way, it holds weight, looked another way it does not. Take for example, the question of evil even as it applies to a belief in hell. I find it interesting it is one of the most potent arguments against God precisely because (again looked one way) it is the most irrational. Why ? Because the goodness or 'badness' of God has no bearing whatsoever on whether He exists. It stands to reason that anyone who denies Bin Laden existed because of the bad things he did is being foolish. The best theodicy can show is that a strictly omnibenevolent God is contradicted by evil in the world. It isn't so much an argument from reason but one from sentiment. Though on the flipside, it calls into question to the reasons we submit our morality to a God with such a bad rep, and furthermore shatters the need to believe in a God for morals as opposed to oneself.

As to whether we are higher beings, sure we are. Man stands supreme amongst the animals. Dissenters can put their mouth on the money and live in the jungle. But then, in the larger scheme of things, man is less than a fleck of possibilities the Infinite Intelligence can make.

And what would make an infinite intelligence and why would an infinite intelligence make anything?

At 3/16/2014 8:30:55 AM, Iredia wrote:Religion stems from the advanced level of consciousness man has. No other species bear religion, not because they are more rational, but because they are less so. The same spirit of final causes in religion is even pervasive in science, especially physics and the quest to establish quantum gravity (the TOE). That aside, I don't think one can run away ftom illogic: it's like trying to run away from your shadow, or making an object that has no backside. I have concluded that illogic is present in any stance. Any school of thought is based on presuppositions and necessarily has flaws.

As it applies to contradictions in religion, looked one way, it holds weight, looked another way it does not. Take for example, the question of evil even as it applies to a belief in hell. I find it interesting it is one of the most potent arguments against God precisely because (again looked one way) it is the most irrational. Why ? Because the goodness or 'badness' of God has no bearing whatsoever on whether He exists. It stands to reason that anyone who denies Bin Laden existed because of the bad things he did is being foolish. The best theodicy can show is that a strictly omnibenevolent God is contradicted by evil in the world. It isn't so much an argument from reason but one from sentiment. Though on the flipside, it calls into question to the reasons we submit our morality to a God with such a bad rep, and furthermore shatters the need to believe in a God for morals as opposed to oneself.

As to whether we are higher beings, sure we are. Man stands supreme amongst the animals. Dissenters can put their mouth on the money and live in the jungle. But then, in the larger scheme of things, man is less than a fleck of possibilities the Infinite Intelligence can make.

And what would make an infinite intelligence and why would an infinite intelligence make anything?

These are meaningless questions from my POV, especially the first. The infinite Intelligence is uncaused and I can't say exactly why it made the universe, that will be speculation. I can infer that it wanted to make the universe though, if it didn't, there would be none and no us with it.

"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness." - Max Planck

At 3/13/2014 2:27:50 PM, zmikecuber wrote:I've never been high in my life. I said no to drugs.

But Koala bears are higher than me. They eat a certain type of leaves that makes them constantly high. I kid you not.

There is no such thing as a koala bear.

They're technically not bears, yes, but that's the common term used to refer to them.

"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."

Yes, they are harmful at times. But they are very good at other times. The same is true of capitalism, nationalism, and even democracy. Religious institutions provide more aid to needy people than most governments do.

1. Since >90% of people are religious, it doesn't seem very surprising they win out in internal charities via sheer numbers over secular ones.

Surely you are aware that the great majority are "Sunday Believers"? I mean, you've just been stating yourself how evil religion can be, and now you are saying that it actually promotes charity? Why do you think that Catholic churches are usually so expensively ornate, and the Papacy is rich beyond measure? It didn't happen from giving it all away. Most of the true charity comes from ordinary people who feel some sense of morality without any commitment due to a religious affiliation.

Oh... I finally understand where you are coming from. I never once said "Sunday Believers" have no sense of morality or charity. I would argue it's rather artificial however, as every action is made with the notion of heaven/hell in mind.

Some may do this, but certainly not all. I have consistently donated to charities and community organizations, but not because I felt I had to in order to "save my soul." I've done it because of the values I've been taught, just as a naturalist would interact with nature due to what he was taught. I never expected anything in return, nor was I afraid of bad consequences if I wasn't charitable. It's a belief-system, not a secret society

If charity/good moral deeds are performed in part only because of the "Celestial Surveillance", and the appalling ones (some of which i listed and attacked in the previous post) also because of their beliefs. Then I think its safe to conclude religion is a bad think. As it drives good people to do bad things.. and cheapens the good things they do do.

Of course they will be "performed in part" by people who are afraid of not conforming. But then scientific theories are often supported by scientists who are afraid of not conforming. They fear for the effect it might have on their careers. People's motives are as varied as the people themselves, irregardless of where they stand on religion.

But then... if you want population control... the best way is something akin to religion... We could invent a so much better religion right now between the two of us. If you accept that much then surely the secular approach, which is a blank slate and open to debate & open to changing its idea depending on the evidence, surely that approach is the better one for society.

I agree, which is why I'm no fan of organized religion. But I have to believe that there is some greater truth, some real purpose for my existence. I cannot accept that I'm only here for the sake of myself or due to any mindless process. Nor can I accept that I have no free will. I do agree that you and I could probably come-up with a better religion than the majority of those that exist today, because most of them have serious faults. What I defend is an individual's right to have his/her own belief system, or a personal relationship with God if that is what they wish.

2. Do they really do more good than harm? AIDS in Africa anybody?

3. Missionary requirements.

Even during Roman times Emperor Constantine became a Christian because he was impressed by the manner in which Christians stayed-put to help strangers with the plague when their own families had deserted them. He hoped the power of such a people's "God" could save the Roman Empire. So I think we should give respect where it is due.

We do know form experience however, when you take away the freedom of thought, and speech, then any regime becomes totalitarian. Hitler, North Korea, Soviets, and the religious ones today such as Saudi, Pakistan, Egypt. This is something unique to Christianity (which is the main religion where I live), where one gets punished for what they think. And in current day Islam and the long-long past Christianity, blasphemy is punishable, often by death.

That's right: the Soviet Union, Maoist China, Cambodia - all openly atheist, yet responsible for more deaths than WW2. People will always find reasons to oppress others, or even to kill. Usually it's because they have something to gain.

Atheism doesn't get you anywhere. Similarly to the term 'teism'. So I really don't see your argument there. In fact most of the examples raised are under the clockwork very much alike religion in the way they were executed, with a totalitarian regime what emerged.

I merely used the term because they seemed so intent to make their atheism clear. I personally couldn't care less. A person is the sum of his actions, not his claims.

Similarly 'theism' has no dogma until it is assosiated with a specific god belief, with specific attributes which have an effect on behaviour.

In any disagreement the truth usually lies close to the middle. If a sentient God does exist then the importance rests with our eternal being, not some extremely temporary state. A man who resorts to violence may make some difference, but not nearly as much as a man who becomes a true martyr to his faith. Of course few people possess this kind of courage, but when they do it can change the world.

Plenty of people however possess the courage to judge others, transform the state based on their dubious beliefs. Come on, Marriage Rights, Slavery, Homosexuality, Education, Abortions, Euthanasia? Just to name a few.

Yes, they do, and it is patently wrong. It's one thing to judge an act (even murder) but quite another to judge the person who commits it. We can't walk in their shoes. We should judge them only when it becomes necessary to protect ourselves, our families and our societies.

I'm not religious, nor am I am atheist, but I am fascinated by the balances of existence. No matter which reality a person accepts we know for certain that it is highly unlikely.

At 3/15/2014 9:40:32 PM, Idealist wrote:So when the Bible says that under-cooked pork is dangerous

Citation please!

Leviticus: 7-8, for one. "And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he [is] unclean to you." ~ kingjamesbibleonline.org When you read the Bible like a regular book you can rationalize that pork was seen as "unclean" because meat was often under-cooked back then, and many people died of eating pork.

Yes, they are harmful at times. But they are very good at other times. The same is true of capitalism, nationalism, and even democracy. Religious institutions provide more aid to needy people than most governments do.

1. Since >90% of people are religious, it doesn't seem very surprising they win out in internal charities via sheer numbers over secular ones.

Surely you are aware that the great majority are "Sunday Believers"? I mean, you've just been stating yourself how evil religion can be, and now you are saying that it actually promotes charity? Why do you think that Catholic churches are usually so expensively ornate, and the Papacy is rich beyond measure? It didn't happen from giving it all away. Most of the true charity comes from ordinary people who feel some sense of morality without any commitment due to a religious affiliation.

Oh... I finally understand where you are coming from. I never once said "Sunday Believers" have no sense of morality or charity. I would argue it's rather artificial however, as every action is made with the notion of heaven/hell in mind.

Some may do this, but certainly not all. I have consistently donated to charities and community organizations, but not because I felt I had to in order to "save my soul." I've done it because of the values I've been taught, just as a naturalist would interact with nature due to what he was taught. I never expected anything in return, nor was I afraid of bad consequences if I wasn't charitable. It's a belief-system, not a secret society

If charity/good moral deeds are performed in part only because of the "Celestial Surveillance", and the appalling ones (some of which i listed and attacked in the previous post) also because of their beliefs. Then I think its safe to conclude religion is a bad think. As it drives good people to do bad things.. and cheapens the good things they do do.

Of course they will be "performed in part" by people who are afraid of not conforming. But then scientific theories are often supported by scientists who are afraid of not conforming. They fear for the effect it might have on their careers. People's motives are as varied as the people themselves, irregardless of where they stand on religion.

1. This is a Red Herring2. The Red Herring smells good too. I am intrigued. What scientists and what theories are you talking about? Since it's definitely what I see on this end.

But then... if you want population control... the best way is something akin to religion... We could invent a so much better religion right now between the two of us. If you accept that much then surely the secular approach, which is a blank slate and open to debate & open to changing its idea depending on the evidence, surely that approach is the better one for society.

I agree, which is why I'm no fan of organized religion. But I have to believe that there is some greater truth, some real purpose for my existence. I cannot accept that I'm only here for the sake of myself or due to any mindless process. Nor can I accept that I have no free will. I do agree that you and I could probably come-up with a better religion than the majority of those that exist today, because most of them have serious faults. What I defend is an individual's right to have his/her own belief system, or a personal relationship with God if that is what they wish.

Yes, they are harmful at times. But they are very good at other times. The same is true of capitalism, nationalism, and even democracy. Religious institutions provide more aid to needy people than most governments do.

1. Since >90% of people are religious, it doesn't seem very surprising they win out in internal charities via sheer numbers over secular ones.

Surely you are aware that the great majority are "Sunday Believers"? I mean, you've just been stating yourself how evil religion can be, and now you are saying that it actually promotes charity? Why do you think that Catholic churches are usually so expensively ornate, and the Papacy is rich beyond measure? It didn't happen from giving it all away. Most of the true charity comes from ordinary people who feel some sense of morality without any commitment due to a religious affiliation.

Oh... I finally understand where you are coming from. I never once said "Sunday Believers" have no sense of morality or charity. I would argue it's rather artificial however, as every action is made with the notion of heaven/hell in mind.

Some may do this, but certainly not all. I have consistently donated to charities and community organizations, but not because I felt I had to in order to "save my soul." I've done it because of the values I've been taught, just as a naturalist would interact with nature due to what he was taught. I never expected anything in return, nor was I afraid of bad consequences if I wasn't charitable. It's a belief-system, not a secret society

If charity/good moral deeds are performed in part only because of the "Celestial Surveillance", and the appalling ones (some of which i listed and attacked in the previous post) also because of their beliefs. Then I think its safe to conclude religion is a bad think. As it drives good people to do bad things.. and cheapens the good things they do do.

Of course they will be "performed in part" by people who are afraid of not conforming. But then scientific theories are often supported by scientists who are afraid of not conforming. They fear for the effect it might have on their careers. People's motives are as varied as the people themselves, irregardless of where they stand on religion.

1. This is a Red Herring2. The Red Herring smells good too. I am intrigued. What scientists and what theories are you talking about? Since it's definitely what I see on this end.

You can call it a Red-Herring if you want, but I suspect you know better. Just a few months ago I read a book about Newtonian physics in which half-a-chapter was devoted to what happened to scientists who dared to oppose his thinking, yet later turned-out to be right. Right now I'm reading the book Quantum: Einstein, Bohr, And The Great Debate, by Manjit Kumar, and it mentions it, too. I'll not go to the trouble of looking-up the passages, though. It's an oft-discussed topic.

But then... if you want population control... the best way is something akin to religion... We could invent a so much better religion right now between the two of us. If you accept that much then surely the secular approach, which is a blank slate and open to debate & open to changing its idea depending on the evidence, surely that approach is the better one for society.

I agree, which is why I'm no fan of organized religion. But I have to believe that there is some greater truth, some real purpose for my existence. I cannot accept that I'm only here for the sake of myself or due to any mindless process. Nor can I accept that I have no free will. I do agree that you and I could probably come-up with a better religion than the majority of those that exist today, because most of them have serious faults. What I defend is an individual's right to have his/her own belief system, or a personal relationship with God if that is what they wish.